Author Topic: What If ?  (Read 3443 times)

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3129
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: What If ?
« Reply #15 on: February 07, 2016, 10:28:34 AM »
Trade cost would get brutal at long distances.


The yet to be implemented trade costs?
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Arx

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Karma: +16/-3
  • Sunscreen will not protect you from despair.
    • View Profile
Re: What If ?
« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2016, 11:28:52 AM »
Wait, does that not do anything? Then yeah, it's an issue.

Daimall

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +3/-1
    • View Profile
Re: What If ?
« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2016, 09:25:59 PM »
Trade cost has no effect as of now, I am pretty certain.

Ratharing

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
  • Karma: +25/-12
    • View Profile
Re: What If ?
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2016, 03:18:46 PM »
Trade cost would get brutal at long distances.


So armies can't forage and thus cannot travel far away from home? That's the death of the crusading and raiding themes. Terrible ideas.

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: What If ?
« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2016, 11:55:51 PM »
I don't know how complex it would be to code it, but I feel the best would be if supply would be "commanded" by camp followers.

- So "bag" of camp followers to exist as now and be major starvation factor. Yet, troops should have some "reserve" i.e. ability to survive for a while even without camp followers
- How "bag" should be filled - that could be manageable i.e. player himself decided that some amount of food for bag be filled by food route from settlement A. The rest could be plundered locally, or instantly resupplied in friendly settlement, depending on circumstances, meaning level of bag fill
- Establishing food supply route from settlements should be easy enough. Or some building should have this function. i.e. building has to be built before settlement is able to send food routes for soldiers.

Many variations could make fun. For instance, food routes could be very efficient within own realm, than efficiency should drop over distance. So it would not disallow distant wars, but would just make it much more expensive.

I would always like something like allied realms to be allowed to send food routes to friendly allied soldiers, but know that Tom is not inclined to impose mechanics to diplomatic relations (at least so far).  :P

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3129
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: What If ?
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2016, 12:08:37 AM »
I don't know how complex it would be to code it, but I feel the best would be if supply would be "commanded" by camp followers.

- So "bag" of camp followers to exist as now and be major starvation factor. Yet, troops should have some "reserve" i.e. ability to survive for a while even without camp followers
- How "bag" should be filled - that could be manageable i.e. player himself decided that some amount of food for bag be filled by food route from settlement A. The rest could be plundered locally, or instantly resupplied in friendly settlement, depending on circumstances, meaning level of bag fill
- Establishing food supply route from settlements should be easy enough. Or some building should have this function. i.e. building has to be built before settlement is able to send food routes for soldiers.

Many variations could make fun. For instance, food routes could be very efficient within own realm, than efficiency should drop over distance. So it would not disallow distant wars, but would just make it much more expensive.

I would always like something like allied realms to be allowed to send food routes to friendly allied soldiers, but know that Tom is not inclined to impose mechanics to diplomatic relations (at least so far).  :P


If you have a constant trade link to your settlement, the purpose of camp followers becomes less clear. Is there a method to block an enemies supply line? Is is simply so that when you are close to the source you fill up your supply which is then used as you move further away and suffer from slower trade links (trade cost?)


Of the three options presented I felt camp followers added the most. Your melding of A) and C) is indeed interesting, we just need some more specifics.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6320
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: What If ?
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2016, 12:21:24 PM »
a) and b) where mostly to check your reaction.

c) - resupply only from camp followers - is what I seriously think about. Before implementing it, I would have to do some tweaking to ensure that both looting for food and resupply from friendly settlements along the way are viable options to keep an army in the field.

Imagine if these two were possible - you can get enough food from looting at least in some army configurations to cover you for some days, and you can resupply efficiently in friendly settlements - then c) would to my mind add so much to the game:

* no more negative effect to settlements from passing-through armies
* no more starving out someone just by hanging around, you would have to actively loot and/or (later, when implemented) besiege them
* a clear and simply supply system
* many options to resupply - loot, friendlies or couriers with fresh camp followers

Forcing an army to loot in allied or neutral territory in order to not starve is especially something that would create so much potential conflict.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3129
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: What If ?
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2016, 12:29:00 PM »
a) and b) where mostly to check your reaction.

c) - resupply only from camp followers - is what I seriously think about. Before implementing it, I would have to do some tweaking to ensure that both looting for food and resupply from friendly settlements along the way are viable options to keep an army in the field.

Imagine if these two were possible - you can get enough food from looting at least in some army configurations to cover you for some days, and you can resupply efficiently in friendly settlements - then c) would to my mind add so much to the game:

* no more negative effect to settlements from passing-through armies
* no more starving out someone just by hanging around, you would have to actively loot and/or (later, when implemented) besiege them
* a clear and simply supply system
* many options to resupply - loot, friendlies or couriers with fresh camp followers

Forcing an army to loot in allied or neutral territory in order to not starve is especially something that would create so much potential conflict.


The only thing I have against it, is it possibly favours the active. If you are needing to resupply in enemy territory, those that can loot and be online in 4 hours to either loot again or move on depending on their scout reports potentially have an advantage. How much of an advantage is hard for me to say at this stage.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Constantine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
  • Karma: +19/-10
    • View Profile
Re: What If ?
« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2016, 02:12:35 PM »
Forcing an army to loot in allied or neutral territory in order to not starve is especially something that would create so much potential conflict.
That may be indeed an interesting change. It will make moving through allied or neutral territories a more significant issue and generate tension and encourage roleplay.
My concern is attrition becoming such a significant problem it will eventually reduce conflict and interaction because people would rather turtle up in their demesnes and sit on their hands.

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6320
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: What If ?
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2016, 07:27:37 PM »
The only thing I have against it, is it possibly favours the active. If you are needing to resupply in enemy territory, those that can loot and be online in 4 hours to either loot again or move on depending on their scout reports potentially have an advantage. How much of an advantage is hard for me to say at this stage.

I usually loot and then set travel, and so far it has worked very well for me.

Yes, you can loot twice in succession, but the second one will usually yield you less, so often it is not worth the effort. But maybe I should keep this in mind and allow for looting to be queued.

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6320
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: What If ?
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2016, 07:28:59 PM »
My concern is attrition becoming such a significant problem it will eventually reduce conflict and interaction because people would rather turtle up in their demesnes and sit on their hands.

Yes.

What I don't understand at all is why people are so afraid to fight their neighbours. The War Declaration thing is meant to address that, to bring more limited war and let you do the "hey guy, that estate belongs to me, let's fight over it" thing without every tiny conflict escalating into a world war.

A man can hope, right?


De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3129
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: What If ?
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2016, 10:13:41 PM »
I usually loot and then set travel, and so far it has worked very well for me.

Yes, you can loot twice in succession, but the second one will usually yield you less, so often it is not worth the effort. But maybe I should keep this in mind and allow for looting to be queued.


That doesn't negate the advantage. The advantage is in the decision making at the end of looting. Do I stay? Can I see enemies coming. Do I have time to loot again before moving on to greener pastures? Especially relevant if looting starts to affect a settlement. An army like Elysiums, that has at the moment almost 12 nobles of high activity can loot 4-5 times a day, while ensuing there is little chance they can get caught in the act.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: What If ?
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2016, 10:43:21 PM »
Getting food only from lotting and resupply really looks logical.

Though I am always on the side of slower players as myself, I feel looting itself will not be so big trouble like current starvation of passing troops is.

Looting stops even the most active ones for a while, and that is what gives more chance to slower. Maybe looting could be adjusted like larger troops need more time to loot?!

The only thing I would personally always like as addition to this is:
- camp followers - the most efficient in own territory, no distance penalties
- when leaving own territory, efficiency reduced by distance from own territory. is it hard to code that?

that all comes out of the feeling that neighbor wars are the most interesting ones. that doesn't mean distant wars needs ban, but just to be made much more costly.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3129
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: What If ?
« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2016, 10:56:49 PM »
Getting food only from lotting and resupply really looks logical.

Though I am always on the side of slower players as myself, I feel looting itself will not be so big trouble like current starvation of passing troops is.

Looting stops even the most active ones for a while, and that is what gives more chance to slower. Maybe looting could be adjusted like larger troops need more time to loot?!

The only thing I would personally always like as addition to this is:
- camp followers - the most efficient in own territory, no distance penalties
- when leaving own territory, efficiency reduced by distance from own territory. is it hard to code that?

that all comes out of the feeling that neighbor wars are the most interesting ones. that doesn't mean distant wars needs ban, but just to be made much more costly.


How do you explain that logically? Looting a settlement should return the same amount of food given similar parameters, regardless of distance. Morale of troops perhaps? No as interested in looting cause they are all sulking about being away from home.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

WVH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
  • Karma: +20/-47
    • View Profile
Re: What If ?
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2016, 04:55:36 PM »
If you want me to fight the people right next to me... give us something to fight for.  Anything.

The idea that changing food will cause me to fight close to home has not worked from the start of the game til now... tweaking it to keep trying for the same effect is not going to work.

I have tried it.  I have lived it.  I have been willing to loose armies to starvation from year two on.  But even I am getting tired of food being the driving factor for the entire game.

If you make it hard to feed soldiers, we will have fewer wars.  If you make combat preparation better, starting with how we organize garrisons and armies, how we select them for example, let us put them into units of our own design that SHOW them that way without having to figure out what letter they are supposed to be in... THEN that helps us fight wars.

Help us with maps.  Help us with reasons to fight locally (morale is a good one), increase region familiarity from local wars, trophies from local wars, spawn random items during local wars so we can fight for them.  Let the Item have a boost to production or something.  MAKE us want it.

But more food talk?  It is old.  It has not worked well, and to be honest I am tired of having to deal with it.  I never know from one day to the next if food is up down or sideways... it seems to be the one thing that is used for control... but we dont want it.  I dont want to fight and worry about food.  I want to fight and worry about tactics.

Food in combat is dragging on the game.  It is no fun for the defender or the attacker.  We want to fight fun wars!  Using strategy and cunning.  We want to see if our armies are better than their armies.  So please help us make that easy!  Not harder.

I know that is unrealistic to the dynamic game world.  I just don't care.  I want the politics and the wars to be the driving factor of victory or loss.  Not if I remembered to pack enough PBJ sandwiches.

I am begging you to make it more simple to go to war.  That is the one major thing the game is lacking still after all this time.  Make it fun and easy to assign the troops.  Make the more experienced soldier my dynamic so we feel their loss.  Give us local things to fight for...